|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 6, 2019 19:56:18 GMT
So I read the first McKenna book a few years ago and casually saw all these controversies about all this stuff... and idly stumbled upon it again today.
Can anyone explain to me what this is all about? Does anyone know who Jed McKenna actually is, or not really?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 7, 2019 7:17:41 GMT
So I read the first McKenna book a few years ago and casually saw all these controversies about all this stuff... and idly stumbled upon it again today. Can anyone explain to me what this is all about? Does anyone know who Jed McKenna actually is, or not really?Lots of speculation, but that seems to be it. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jul 7, 2019 12:03:17 GMT
So I read the first McKenna book a few years ago and casually saw all these controversies about all this stuff... and idly stumbled upon it again today. Can anyone explain to me what this is all about? Does anyone know who Jed McKenna actually is, or not really? speculation is that one of the intentions of the author was to teach a lesson by the focus that people put on the messenger, rather than the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 7, 2019 13:24:49 GMT
So I read the first McKenna book a few years ago and casually saw all these controversies about all this stuff... and idly stumbled upon it again today. Can anyone explain to me what this is all about? Does anyone know who Jed McKenna actually is, or not really? speculation is that one of the intentions of the author was to teach a lesson by the focus that people put on the messenger, rather than the truth. Could be. Or as someone else speculated, it might be the perfect way to put out teachings without any of the hassle  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Jul 7, 2019 13:38:37 GMT
My speculation is that one of the intentions of the author was to teach a lesson by the focus that people put on the messenger, rather than the truth. Could be. Or as someone else speculated, it might be the perfect way to put out teachings without any of the hassle Yes, I find that one likely as well, and don't see the two as mutually exclusive.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 7, 2019 15:34:48 GMT
So I read the first McKenna book a few years ago and casually saw all these controversies about all this stuff... and idly stumbled upon it again today. Can anyone explain to me what this is all about? Does anyone know who Jed McKenna actually is, or not really? speculation is that one of the intentions of the author was to teach a lesson by the focus that people put on the messenger, rather than the truth. Agreed. And I think the imposters, those who set up forums and such, putting themselves forth as "Jed," (I think there are two...or were) are taking that ball and running with it. That lesson (focus upon the message not the messenger) as well as, "It's all Lies," is their get outta jail free card that exempts them from fraud/lying about their identity. |
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Jul 10, 2019 14:49:48 GMT
Freedom is not conditional on the story. Realization does not limit the potential for things to happen. Realization frees one from the bondage of the conditions based on the mind's interpretation of what is happening. Interpretation happens via thought, which in turn conditions the mind, which in turn fixates the attention on details accepted as limitations/bondage, which again gives rise to thoughts/interpretations, etc. ~It's a closed system, like with any coding endeavor. Sure, realization influences the conditioning, but mostly by undermining the thought-based validity for "reality". It is the broadest viewpoint and is creative outlook. The thoughts that might give substance to such entities as SVPs or other "things" (and then assuming they are anything more than mere distinctions in awareness) are known to be fleeting, impermanent. So, things don't actually exist in their own right. The question might be "Nan yar?", but there really isn't an answer. It's all a bit more radical than folks would like to let on. It can get very messy when seeking, to be sure, but the general attitude is, "so be it" when nothing else matters. That all said, my memory of the search was a bit more rabid and intense. I do not know how every pathless way to the gateless gate unfolds, but since you are recently married and do have an newborn child in your care, it might be best to approach it all as lightly and joyfully as possible! But, it will likely annoy you. You programmer types are always looking for discrepancies in the code, hehe!  There is a sharp distinction between what you say and what I say.
you say that interpretation towards the situation changes. But the truth is, the situation which you are looking at is not 'happening out there', that's created by you or it's being imagined by consciousness. So You would not be creating some situation which you this time interpret differently, you would simply stop creating such a situation which would put you in suffering. Story changes along with inner conditioning, In my dictionary, there is no such a thing as inner conditioning, that's the part and parcel of the same story. Story changes, you are not in need of expressing certain aspect of you which you expressed so far. Simple.
So, you're standing by your idea that all this creating is happening for a "reason". You dream eerrr, think there must be a reasoned impetus to create a cause and effect. I know it certainly sounds reasonable to most conditioned thought patterns. If you can recall, in real time, some of the seeds of your conditioned thoughts and reasons, you might catch a glimpse of somenothing. |
|
|
|
Post by someNothing on Jul 10, 2019 15:01:01 GMT
What you consider conditioning is part and parcel of the unfolding movie. Something terrible may happen but you may not piss off, something terrible may not happen at all. But both are unfolding story. Creation of thought happens via the created conditioning, which is always based on the past. What is being pointed to is prior to the conditioning and creation. But yeah, that lack of control and/or difficulty in seeing through the illusion of an apparently objective thought-based realityscape has been known to piss off a few dream characters. |
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Jul 10, 2019 15:51:50 GMT
There is a sharp distinction between what you say and what I say.
you say that interpretation towards the situation changes. But the truth is, the situation which you are looking at is not 'happening out there', that's created by you or it's being imagined by consciousness. So You would not be creating some situation which you this time interpret differently, you would simply stop creating such a situation which would put you in suffering. Story changes along with inner conditioning, In my dictionary, there is no such a thing as inner conditioning, that's the part and parcel of the same story. Story changes, you are not in need of expressing certain aspect of you which you expressed so far. Simple.
So, you're standing by your idea that all this creating is happening for a "reason". You dream eerrr, think there must be a reasoned impetus to create a cause and effect. I know it certainly sounds reasonable to most conditioned thought patterns. If you can recall, in real time, some of the seeds of your conditioned thoughts and reasons, you might catch a glimpse of somenothing. Apparently, Gopal thinks he purposefully creates on the impersonal level of Consciousness. He has, conceptually, properly placed himself as this Consciousness, but has brought his ideas of personal will and purpose into his new identity. Once he fully understands the difference between personal and impersonal, he'll find he doesn't even have a new identity from which to launch a purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Jul 10, 2019 16:25:54 GMT
So, you're standing by your idea that all this creating is happening for a "reason". You dream eerrr, think there must be a reasoned impetus to create a cause and effect. I know it certainly sounds reasonable to most conditioned thought patterns. If you can recall, in real time, some of the seeds of your conditioned thoughts and reasons, you might catch a glimpse of somenothing. Apparently, Gopal thinks he purposefully creates on the impersonal level of Consciousness. He has, conceptually, properly placed himself as this Consciousness, but has brought his ideas of personal will and purpose into his new identity. Once he fully understands the difference between personal and impersonal, he'll find he doesn't even have a new identity from which to launch a purpose. I think what many fail to see is that nonduality, realizing there is but One thingless/thing, does not preclude the possibility of an 'oversoul/entity/higher self' that has a stake/interest in the game. But even if that were the case, it's important to see that that would still be part and parcel of what is deemed 'personal' in relation to 'impersonal.' I get the sense that Gopal believes in a sort of 'soul/entity' that is inextricable from the appearing body/mind, encompasses it, but is still distinct in it's 'interests', but he is mistaking that for impersonal God/Source. The kensho crowd is doing essentially the same thing; They experience an energetic field of sorts that lies beyond what initially meets the eye, thus, they've conflated that energetic field with "________________". They've mistakingly attributed Truth to something that arises within experience. As I see it, an experienced field of energy or an experienced soul/higher self, although it could perhaps be deemed to be a 'middle layer' of sorts between personal/impersonal, between appearance and that which lies fundamental, is not actually in the 'middle' at all, rather, it's still of the realm of appearance, an 'arising within/to' that which lies fundamental. |
|
